Field of the Disclosure
The present disclosure relates to cleaning compositions in general, and cleaning compositions well suited for those individuals, who experience multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), in particular. Individuals with MCS are virtually unable to use commercially available cleaners. The instant disclosure concerns the selection of ingredients and methods for formulating and evaluating a series of cleaning products for use by any person, including individuals with MCS.
Cleaning product compositions that are suitable for cleaning clothing, dishware, countertops and other hard surfaces have been commercially prepared, marketed, and sold to consumers for over two hundred years. As cleaning technology progressed, environmental and safety issues sometimes lagged behind discoveries in cleaning efficacy. For example, in the late 1950's and early 1960's, it was found that synthetic surfactants that had supplanted natural soap products exhibited poor biodegradability, and were building up in waste water streams; streams laden with tenacious foam were widespread, and tremendous efforts were focused on finding alternatives. In the 1970's, certain builder compounds also came under scrutiny for their environmental impact, such as eutrophication on inland lakes and ponds. In the search for alternate builder materials, one candidate material, nitrilotriacetic acid, NTA, was found to be a very promising candidate. Fortunately, before it reached mass distribution, safety tests showed that it could transport heavy metals across placental membranes, which was thought of as potentially harmful to developing fetuses.
These examples, among others, has led to attention being paid to safety on par with that of cleaning performance; in fact, attention to the issue has resulted in numerous very effective ingredients being removed from commerce. By and large, most cleaning ingredients currently in use have resolved many of the issues of the past, and now there is widespread effort to understand the potential after-effects of cleaning ingredients as far as acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and hormone disruption are now commonly looked at before ingredients are brought to market.
One further phenomenon that has received attention in the last few years is the effect of cleaning compositions on chemically sensitive individuals. In westernized countries, asthma and related atopic disorders such as eczema and hay fever are now major public health concerns, due to their high prevalence—approximately 20% of the people in the United States are estimated to be sufferers. Understandably, there is concern associated with significant ill health and high societal and healthcare costs. Multiple scientific studies have raised concerns about the potential for consumer products to cause or exacerbate asthma or asthma-like responses.
While the removal of dyes and fragrances from cleaning products have alleviated responses of some sensitive individuals, there are a considerable number of consumers who are not able to use commercially-available products for reasons that until now have not been well-understood. These individuals are forced to use centuries-old cleaners such as vinegar and baking soda, products that are lacking in cleaning efficacy, but are a last resort for these individuals. Unfortunately, while the mechanism whereby these individuals become highly and multiply sensitized is not understood, when they do become sensitized, there is no known cure of reversal of debilitating responses. Products are therefore needed that are not only designed for these individuals, but for a general population that is possibly but unknowingly vulnerable to acquiring multiple chemical sensitivities.
In recent years, more and more products are being sold which claim to be “green”, “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “organic”, “sustainable”, etc., with the implication that such products contain ingredients that are bio-based, or at least have lower levels of petrochemical ingredients. While some of these products have been based on well-founded technology, the actions of some have caused environmental advocates as well as the media to warn against the phenomenon of trying to promote a product's credentials through dubious claims as “greenwashing.” Although some regulatory agencies, such as the EPA and FDA, provided regulations and standards for environmentally hazardous substances and food and drugs respectively, there is no similar agency that specifically covers cleaning products. In addition, none of these agencies have developed clear guidelines for the terms “natural”, “green”, “environmentally friendly” or the like. There are some organizations, which provide lists of approved natural components and standards for components based on standardized test methods which measure, toxicity, biodegradability and other factors for determining the naturalness and environmental impact of a given product. However there is little guidance on issues like, use of “eco-hybrids” or “hybrid surfactants” that are comprised of both petroleum and plant based chemistries, which is contributes to the ongoing problem of “greenwashing”.
There is perhaps a larger problem with the implication that no matter how “green” or “natural” a product might be, that such products may imply that they are safer for consumers than other mainstream products. While standards have been established to measure the degree of bio-basis of a product, the need for standards to better promote the safety of such products has received too little attention, much less been established. No organizations can certify the overall safety of consumer cleaning products, in particular towards consumers that suffer from multiple chemical sensitivities.
In addition to proximate effects of potentially deleterious ingredients, increasing attention has turned toward understanding conveyance of such chemicals from the household to the larger environment. Indeed it has been reported that the exhaust coming out of a dryer vent has detectable amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in all tested commercially available detergent products. See A. C. Steinemann, L. G. Gallagher, A. L. Davis, and I. C. MacGregor, “Chemical Emissions from Residential Dryer Vents During Use of Fragranced Laundry Products,” Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, 6 (2011) 151-156. VOCs from consumer products can migrate outdoors and thus impact outdoor air quality. According to California Air Resources Board 1990 statistics, some 265 tons of VOCs were released into California air from the use of consumer products each day. See B. Bridges, “Fragrance: Emerging Health and Environmental Concerns,” Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 17 (2002) 361-371. This makes it difficult for a customer trying to make an environmentally conscious decision to purchase cleaning products that will not release harmful VOCs into the atmosphere.
In summary, cleaning products available in the market today do not explicitly address all aspects of consumer safety. While the vast majority of cleaning product manufacturers ensure that their products cause minimal acute and chronic toxicity problems, exposure to cleaning product chemicals has been associated with the development and exacerbation of asthma and related disorders. However, consumers who may desire to lessen their exposure to harmful chemicals by purchasing safe cleaning products are unable to do so because product ingredients are not fully disclosed on labels. Further, the ingredient profiles of cleaning products that are claimed to be green are remarkably similar to those not labeled green, causing confusion in the minds of consumers looking for safe cleaning products. Indeed, experts on indoor air quality have shown the presence of known carcinogens and hazardous air pollutants even in cleaning products that are free of fragrances and dyes.
Description of the Related Art
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,973,362 and 7,096,084 to Long, et al., teach a method for evaluating chemical components based on their function in the product. The methods taught by Long require first the function of a given raw material in a product first be identified, and then a set of predetermined criteria be applied based on the function of the raw material, to determine the raw material's designated environmental class rating, which is then given an environmental grade of from 1-3. The problem with this method is that it requires an individual, burdensome analysis of each component of a composition to arrive at a final value for the composition as a whole. In addition, it requires that the individual components be analyzed by their function and one or more components in a composition may have multiple functions. Furthermore, this method requires knowledge of all the components, their percentages in the formulation and their functions in a given formulation, which makes testing products off the shelf impossible or impractical because the required information is often not readily available. The end result is that although this method provides a standardized method for measuring the environmental impact of a given chemical formulation, it too is burdensome and requires too much information about the components and their functions to make it practical for use in testing a wide range of compositions that are available on store shelves.
International Publications Nos. WO2007099294, WO2009024743, and WO2009024747 assigned to Reckitt Benckiser Group, plc, teach compositions for toilet cleaning and hard surface cleaning which are “environmentally acceptable,” but the application does not clearly define what is meant by “environmentally acceptable”. The publications merely teach cleaning compositions, which do not have high levels of volatile organic compounds or VOCs, and exclude certain acids, solvents, chelating agents and thickeners. While these applications teach certain “environmentally acceptable” compositions, it does not establish any criteria or test methods which could be used to determine if other compositions meet this criteria other than those compositions which may have the same exact ingredients as those taught in the application.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,990,065 and 6,069,122 assigned to Procter & Gamble teach compositions for dishwashing detergents that contain natural surfactants and solvents, but they do not teach a method or criteria of determining whether a composition is “natural” or a means of measuring the natural components in a given composition. These patents merely teach a means of making a particular dishwashing composition that contains some natural ingredients.